[Dailydave] CGC Wrapup Video
dave.aitel at gmail.com
Fri Aug 18 14:58:54 UTC 2017
So basically what we REALLY want is to know which team found a POV first?
That CPUID thing did make it into the video btw. That really complicates
the analysis. If you ran this again, maybe there is another way?
def. expect simple static analysis to find this. (Shellphish found it
first, I think, but you would expect every time to find this?)
How many vulns did Shellphish find that no one else found? What's the
overlap rate? I see a lot of stack corruption bugs in the corpus - do we
have statistics for what the types of vulns solved were?
This one is interesting:
Also, did ForAllSecure or any other teams fix and rerun their engines on
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:06 AM Jordan Wiens <jordan at psifertex.com> wrote:
> Replaying someone's bug was absolutely a thing.
> Each team was given what amounts to a direct feed of all network traffic
> to their server. If they had good instrumentation they could replay it
> locally and automatically detect which flows represented successful
> exploits and which didn't.
> There are some interesting ideas though on how you might ensure that an
> automated system can't do such a thing. Rubeus, for example, fingerprinted
> the cpuid output of the target infrastructure and introduced divergent
> behavior based on that cpuid. I don't know if it made the final cut of the
> video (still watching it now!) but we did find teams biting on their
> honeypot on multiple occasions. A team would be successfully exploit a
> vulnerability, Rubeus would replace the service with one similar except
> adding a fake vuln only reachable with a non CGC infrastructure cpuid and
> the team would now target that vulnerability, losing out on the points they
> were getting before and netting rubeus some free defense points when they
> were still vulnerable.
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 3:59 PM, dave aitel <dave at immunityinc.com> wrote:
>> Ah, it's there for sure, although you're not sure which bug they
>> exploited. Interesting to draw some corrolations. For example DeepRed
>> (Raytheon) got two weird heap overflows exploited, and then a lot of stack
>> overflows...did that heap overflow come from a replay of someone else's
>> bug? Is that a thing?
>> Heap Overflows:
>> 1. http://www.lungetech.com/cgc-corpus/challenges/CROMU_00055/
>> 2. *http://www.lungetech.com/cgc-corpus/challenges/NRFIN_00052/
>> Hmm. Lots of interesting information here, although somewhat hard to dig
>> through I guess?
>> On 8/17/2017 3:31 PM, Chris Eagle wrote:
>> You may find some of what you want here: http://www.lungetech.com/cgc-corpus/cfe/
>> I have all the raw data from the event including the answers to some of your questions below. If I can format then in some useful manner I will post some of those answers.
>> On 8/17/2017 8:51 AM, dave aitel wrote:
>> So I wanted to type up some notes on the CGC Wrapup <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYYZjTx92KU> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYYZjTx92KU> video, which was excellent. I mean, a part of what you want to do, while you watch it, is strip out all the parts of the thing that are about "playing the game". I know Jordan loves CTFs as some sort of e-sport and also there's a whole community who for whatever reason plays CTFs instead of playing corewars on helpless Chinese networks like of yore, but that stuff is 100% distraction when it comes to the CGC.
>> As you can see, the tiny red lines on the right are supposed to be some combination of "could hack and could secure a service". I can't find anywhere something that has a simple spreadsheet of which samples <http://www.lungetech.com/cgc-corpus/challenges/NRFIN_00080/> <http://www.lungetech.com/cgc-corpus/challenges/NRFIN_00080/> (and even which vulns in which samples) were able to be attacked by which teams. So much of the game was weighted towards performance characteristics that it's hard to determine the information you really need from the scores, although the video goes over some anecdotal examples where RUBEUS and MECHAPHISH were able to attack particular historically interesting programs. It's telling that Mayhem won despite being basically off for half the contest. ;)
>> Does anyone have better data on this?
>> P.S. Holy cow the visualizations on program execution are next gen! Worth a close watch just to see them.
>> Dailydave mailing listDailydave at lists.immunityinc.comhttps://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave
>> Dailydave mailing list
>> Dailydave at lists.immunityinc.com
> Dailydave mailing list
> Dailydave at lists.immunityinc.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Dailydave